using registered democrats as his stormtroopers.

Yep.."America's Greatest Stormfront Cash Receiving Patriot" plans to blow a chunk of change ($1.1 million) in an upcoming New Hampshire ad blitz, in the hopes of finishing in the top 3 in the NH primary.

Lucky, lucky, TV watchers in New Hampshire.

But his strategy to "show" in the primary relies on more than just Stormfront bankrolled ads...it also relies on that other branch of the anti-Israel stream: anti-war, pro-jihad Democrats. From "The Hill":

Perhaps most surprising about PaulÂ’s campaign strategy is that heÂ’s hoping anti-war Democrats will boost him by a few percentage points by registering as Republicans to vote in the GOP contest.

“There has been a large push among Ron Paul supporters to have Democrats register as Republicans,” said Stephen DeMaura, executive director of the New Hampshire Republican Party. “There is a large effort to get Democrats to register as independents to vote in the Republican primary.”

The deadline for changing party registration passed on Oct. 12, but it appears there is a sizable number of anti-war Democrats supporting Paul.

Anti-semitism, the gift that just keeps giving to....Ron Paul.

Posted by: Jack M. at 09:25 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

You may recall the case of Genarlow Wilson, who was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment without the possibility of parole because a 15 year-old gave him a blow-job (Wilson was 17 at the time). Today, the Georgia Supreme Court ordered him released.

"Although society has a significant interest in protecting children from premature sexual activity, we must acknowledge that Wilson's crime does not rise to the level of culpability of adults who prey on children," Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears wrote in a 4-3 majority opinion.

"For the law to punish Wilson as it would an adult, with the extraordinarily harsh punishment of 10 years in prison without the possibility of probation or parole, appears to be grossly disproportionate to his crime," the opinion said.

He had been convicted of "aggravated child molestation" because in Georgia oral sex is more than a mere "immoral or indecent act." If they'd just had sex (no oral), the maximum statutory sentence would have been 12 months.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:05 AM | Comments (45)
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

More self-serving bullshit from TNR, finally posting something on The Plank.

Among those documents was a transcript of a phone conversation that TNR Editor Franklin Foer and TNR Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic had with Beauchamp on September 6—the first time the Army had granted TNR permission to speak with Beauchamp since it cut off outside contact with him on July 26. During this conversation, Beauchamp refused to discuss his article at all: “I’m not going to talk to anyone about anything,” he said. In light of that phone call, some have asked why The New Republic has not retracted “Shock Troops.”

The answer is simple: Since this controversy began, The New Republic’s sole objective has been to uncover the truth. As Scoblic said during the September 6 conversation: “[A]ll we want out of this, and the only way that it is going to end, is if we have the truth. And if it’s—if it’s certain parts of the story are bullshit, then we’ll end that way. If it’s proven to be true, it will end that way. But it’s only going to end with the truth.” The September 6 exchange was extremely frustrating; however, it was frustrating precisely because it did not add any new information to our investigation. Beauchamp’s refusal to defend himself certainly raised serious doubts. That said, Beauchamp’s words were being monitored: His squad leader was in the room as he spoke to us, as was a public affairs specialist, and it is now clear that the Army was recording the conversation for its files.

The next day, via his wife, we learned that Beauchamp did want to stand by his stories and wanted to communicate with us again. Two-and-a-half weeks later, Beauchamp telephoned Foer at home and, in an unmonitored conversation, told him that he continued to stand by every aspect of his story, except for the one inaccuracy he had previously admitted. He also told Foer that in the September 6 call he had spoken under duress, with the implicit threat that he would lose all the freedoms and privileges that his commanding officer had recently restored if he discussed the story with us.

The privileges and freedoms he speaks of are free use of his cell phone and laptop. Certainly Beauchamp would want access to these things, but it's hardly the case he was being threatened with three years in Leavenworth.

...

Faced with the fact that Beauchamp stood by his story and the fact that the Army investigation had serious gaps—as well as the fact that our earlier reporting had uncovered significant evidence corroborating Beauchamp’s accounts—The New Republic decided to continue its investigation. On August 10, we had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Department of the Army for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Beauchamp, particularly any statements Beauchamp had signed. But it was not until October 10 that Central Command informed us that the FOIA request was finally under review by the appropriate office. We also repeatedly tried to get these documents directly from the First Infantry Division, to which Beauchamp is assigned, but we were told that they could be released only through a FOIA request. We also tried to get the statements from Beauchamp himself. However, when Beauchamp requested a copy of his own statements from an Army legal adviser, he was told that he first had to coordinate any dissemination of them with Army public affairs.

It was as we were awaiting the documentary record of the ArmyÂ’s investigation that the Army leaked several documents, including the September 6 transcript, to The Drudge Report, which incorrectly reported that the documents show that Beauchamp had recanted. In fact, they show no such thing, and Drudge soon removed the supporting documents from its website, and later its entire report.

The New Republic is deeply frustrated by the Army’s behavior. TNR has endeavored with good faith to discover whether Beauchamp’s article contained inaccuracies and has repeatedly requested that the Army provide us with documentary evidence that it was fabricated or embellished. Instead of doing this, the Army leaked selective parts of the record—including a conversation that Beauchamp had with his lawyer—continuing a months-long pattern by which the Army has leaked information and misinformation to conservative bloggers while failing to help us with simple requests for documents.

We have worked hard to re-report this piece and will continue to do so. But this process has involved maddening delays compounded by bad faith on the part of at least some officials in the Army. Our investigation has taken far longer than we would like, but it is our obligation and promise to deliver a full account of our findings.

Some points. Foer says that Beauchamp was not free to talk in the Sept 6th call because he was "under duress" from the Army. He doesn't mention another sort of duress -- the fact that Foer himself repeatedly told Beauchamp his wife's career would be "harmed" unless he re-affirmed the story. He says in the later conversation, where he claims Beauchamp stood by the story, there was no duress from the Army, as the call was unmonitored.

But the duress from Foer -- the "harm" that would befall Ellie Reeves -- still was there, no? Foer does not provide a transcript of this call -- it would be interesting to see if Foer continues making these vague threats -- though he almost certainly recorded the conversation himself and could provide it.

But he chooses not to.

"The Editors" then say the Army leaked a transcript of a call "with [Beauchamp's] lawyer," insinuating a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality. But such confidentiality requires actual confidentiality; talking with your lawyer in circumstances that are non-confidential, such a speaking with him in the presence of others who are not his lawyers, voids such confidentiality. You can't shout "I killed my wife!" on the street in front of a dozen witnesses and then claim privilege due to the fact that your lawyer was standing next to you when you shouted this out to the world.

Given that Beauchamp was speaking in front of his staff sergeant, a guy from Army media affairs, and the editors of a nationally-published magazine, I'd have to say the discussion in question was of the non-confidential sort.

It's also pretty questionable if "Gene" was acting as Beauchamp's lawyer -- or TNR's. He keeps seeking from Beauchamp documents TNR wants, but Beauchamp seems reluctant to provide. Under these circumstances, it seems that a lawyer who has Beauchamp for his client might advise him of his rights and best legal options and say something like, "You know, Scott, if you're worried about any of this, if you don't think releasing these documents are in your own interest, you don't have to sign any release form, even if these guys really want you to." Instead, "Gene," ostensibly representing Beauchamp, pushes ahead with TNR's agenda of getting Beauchamp to release the documents.

Lastly, TNR once again lies that it was the Army keeping Beauchamp from speaking with TNR until September 6th. As Foer and Scoblic themselves accuse Beauchamp, Beauchamp himself had been "dodging" TNR. The Army had nothing to do with it. Beauchamp didn't want to talk and was blowing off TNR -- how that implicates the Army in blocking TNR from their "reporter" is a mystery only Foer or perhaps Jon "I Hate Bush" Chait can explain.

Where's the transcript, Frank? You have it. You claim it says all sorts of things. Your credibility on this issue is rather weak. So let us see precisely what Beauchamp said, and precisely what you said.

Posted by: Ace at 08:52 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 1323 words, total size 8 kb.

Not sure I'm buying this. From the Asia Times; I'm guessing this is rewritten from an Iranian state media story. The article is written in an absurdly slanted way, which doesn't provide much confidence in the reportage.

A high-level diplomatic source in Tehran tells Asia Times Online that essentially Putin and the Supreme Leader have agreed on a plan to nullify the George W Bush administration's relentless drive towards launching a preemptive attack, perhaps a tactical nuclear strike, against Iran. An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.

...

Larijani himself had told the Iranian media that Putin had a "special plan" and the Supreme Leader observed that the plan was "ponderable". The problem is that Ahmadinejad publicly denied the Russians had volunteered a new plan.

Iranian hawks close to Ahmadinejad are spinning that Putin's proposal involves Iran temporarily suspending uranium enrichment in exchange for no more United Nations sanctions. That's essentially what International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammad ElBaradei has been working on all along. The key issue is what - in practical terms - will Iran get in return. Obviously it's not the EU's Solana who will have the answer. But as far as Russia is concerned, strategically nothing will appease it except a political/diplomatic solution for the Iranian nuclear dossier.

Thanks to Jason F.

Posted by: Ace at 08:45 AM | Comments (20)
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Killed? Good.

Amid worries of new blazes adding to the firestorm already afflicting the region, a man in Hesperia has been arrested on suspicion of arson, and police reported shooting and killing another arson suspect after chasing him out of scrub behind Cal State San Bernardino.

Law enforcement officials said today that they didn't know whether either of the men had started any of the more than a dozen large fires that have devastated Southern California in recent days, including the nearby Lake Arrowhead blaze. The brush fire in Hesperia was quickly extinguished by residents.

Investigators have said that at least two of the huge wildfires, one in Orange County and the other in Temecula, were the work of arsonists.

The confrontation that ended in the shooting death started about 6 p.m. Tuesday when San Bernardino university police spotted a man in a rural area of flood channels and scrub near the campus. University police tried to detain the man, but he got into his car and fled, authorities said. When he began to ram officers' vehicle, they shot him.

The suspect is described as a 27-year-old man with a home address in Arizona. Sheriff's investigators will search his impounded pickup truck pending a search warrant, Lt. Scott Patterson of the San Bernardino Police Department said this afternoon.

No additional information, including his identity will be released until Thursday.

The names are now out. The dead one:

A California coroner has identified an Arizona man shot and killed by police who chased him because they thought he was a possible arsonist.

The San Bernardino County coroner says the man was 27-year-old Russell Lane Daves of Topock, a small town along the Arizona-Nevada border.

Daves was shot Tuesday night following a chase that ended when he backed his car into a police cruiser and an officer opened fire.

And the arrested one:

Another man was arrested on suspicion of arson in California as authorities were investigating into some of the wildfires that have been devastating large areas in the state for five days, officials said Thursday.

Los Angeles police said they have taken Catalino Pineda, 41, into custody Wednesday after local residents reported that he light a fire and walked away from a hillside in a suburb area.

Fire 'im up.

Posted by: Ace at 08:37 AM | Comments (22)
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

Caution on the link, as it's a link to the Adult Video News site, and has the sort of ads you'd expect from them.

If you've watched porn, you might remember seeing a 2257 compliance declaration regarding records proving all of the people in the porn are 18 or older, and that the records can be found in this or that sleazy lawyer's office. According to the Sixth Circuit, this law is overbroad in protecting the underage.

"This is huge, huge news for the entire industry," attorney J. Michael Murray told AVN. "It means that the statute has been declared unconstitutional in its entirety, at least in the 6th Circuit. This is the result we've all been aiming for; it's a monumental victory. We've been fighting this battle for twelve long years, and this is the third time I argued the case on the 6th Circuit. Finally, we got a court to agree with us."

A sister company to Cleveland-based video distributor GVA-TWN, the now-defunct Connection published approximately a dozen swinger's magazines with personal ads containing sexually explicit photographs.

Connection originally filed suit against the government in September 1995, challenging the constitutionality of the 2257 statute on First Amendment grounds. Following a long, drawn-out series of appeals, today's ruling firmly decides the case in Connection's favor.

...

"Rondee Kamins has fought this battle for twelve years, and she is a hero for what she has done in that long, long fight; she never gave up," Murray said. "This was our third trip to the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and Rondee Kamins is owed an enormous debt of gratitude from the entire industry for this hard-fought battle she waged over these many years."

Hero.

...

"The government says that its interest behind 2257 is in combating child porn," Lee explained. "The problem is that virtually all of what 2257 applies to is not child porn. Each of the [three judges'] opinions today holds that 2257 is not narrowly tailored to an interest in suppressing child porn, because it applies to so much that is not child porn. This has been one of the fundamental objections to section 2257 all along."

Um, are they suggesting that only child porn should be subject to a law designed to insure that porn actors are not children? Do they see the problem there?

Thanks to Michael.

Posted by: Ace at 08:20 AM | Comments (59)
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

In an piece as embarrassingly self-beclowning the one whining about the economic impact on Iraqi grave diggers of lowered violence, McClatchy scores again - this time moaning about how heartless that Bush is to be dismissing the concerns of opium growers!

The nerve of the man, it knows no bounds, none at all. The drug flow of heroin to the west must not be impeded! The funding for terrorists must continue!

In 2004, U.S.-contracted aircraft secretly sprayed harmless plastic granules over poppy fields in Afghanistan to gauge public reaction to using herbicides to kill the opium poppies that help fund the Taliban and al Qaida...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:52 AM | Comments (17)
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

Treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter is a really, really bad idea. Especially in countries without the rule of law and who quite frankly are on the side of the terrorists.

SAN'A, Yemen - Yemen has set free one of the al-Qaida masterminds of the USS Cole bombing in 2000 that killed 17 American sailors, a senior security official said Thursday.

He and 22 others, mostly al-Qaida fighters, escaped from prison in 2004. But al-Badawi was granted his freedom after turning himself in 15 days ago and pledging loyalty to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

The official said police were told by the government to "stop all previous orders concerning measures adopted against al-Badawi."

The only way this is good news is if itÂ’s a prelude to this bastard getting up close and personal with a Hellfire missile. ItÂ’s happened before in Yemen but since then it seems the CIAÂ’s war on the Bush Administration and the Democrats fixation on terrorists rights and winning elections has really cut into our missile slinging activities. It seems like this is a good time to get our mojo back.

Posted by: DrewM. at 07:36 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

Today, 8% of Baghdad is under 100% control of ISF, with ISF assisting the Americans in the other 92%. Odierno predicts the percentage of 100% ISF responsibility to be 40-50% by the end of next year.

[ODIERNO]...We are anxious for them to take over full responsibility. As well theyÂ’re anxious to take over full responsibility. And we work closely together, and we will continue to do that as we move forward.

REP3: When you say large portions, ballpark 40, 50, 60%?

ODIERNO: I would say by the end of the year. Again, you all want me to look into a crystal ball and then a year from now you say while a year ago you said 50%, weÂ’re not at 50%. I will tell you I think it will be somewhere between 40-50% by the end of the year

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 06:37 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 157 words, total size 1 kb.

Awwww...look at the little baby dancing to the faint sounds of "Let's Go Crazy." Over 125,000 people have watched that video.

Unfortunately, one of them was Prince.

"Prince believes it is wrong for YouTube, or any user-generated site, to appropriate his music without his consent,'' the company said in a statement released to ABC News Thursday. "That position has nothing to do with any particular video that uses his songs. It's simply a matter of principle. And legally, he has the right to have his music removed. We support him and this important principle. That is why, over the last few months, we have asked YouTube to remove thousands of different videos that use Prince music without his permission."

A well-placed source directly involved in the situation confirmed to ABC News that Prince was directly involved in seeking the takedown of Lenz's video.

"This guy scours the Internet,'' the source said of the legendary artist, who once changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol and wrote the word "Slave'" on his cheek until he won back the rights to his music from another publishing company.

"He's really intense about this stuff," the source said, adding that Lenz's video "happened to be one of many'' that artist apparently located online and demanded be taken down.

This does present an interesting question about fair use and home videos. I think every parent takes videos of their child dancing to music, and we show them off to relatives so they can coo and compliment at the appropriate times (parents are demanding bastards this way). If I own the rights to that song, then playing it for my child to dance seems a pretty clear case of fair use, especially if I don't use a substantial portion of the created work.

Does my right to fair use change when I record the dancing? Does it change further when I make the video available to friends and family on a hosting platform such as YouTube? Given the shortness of these videos compared to the length of the songs, it seems a stretch for companies like Universal to claim copyright infringement. It's not as though I'm selling these videos or profiting from them at all.

If the RIAA wants to go after people for downloading pirated music, fine. There is no right to free music, and I think most people agree and sympathize with their plight. But it's when they start doing crap like this that my sympathy goes out the window - this is not piracy, there was no intent to violate copyright and it seems to me some common sense on the part of the industry and artists is warranted here.

Posted by: Slublog at 06:35 AM | Comments (66)
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.